What is the point?

[Little Star]

After looking through pictures from Christian Dior's latest show, I was shocked by how costume-like and monstrous some of his designs were. Now I know Dior has always been like this...but I just wonder how Dior is not in major debt! The amount of money they would spend on materials, labour etc to put together such a show...when in the end most of it is just for that...show. 99.9 per cent of it is unwearable in a normal situation... I don't understand why designers do this! Does anyone know?

 

[djork]

they make the majority of their profits through fragrance licensing, and it's an artform. the runway shows off creativity to magazines and buyers. i'm sure others can expound on this more.

 

[TheSweetest]

Why do some designers design the way that they do? Tao and Comme Des Garcons are examples of designers that confuse. Not many of the pieces are useful IMO, but sometimes pretty. I only ask because I thought the mindset of a designer was to have desireable, wearable pieces that people want to keep. Can someone please explain. I don't mean to be an idiot but maybe someone can enlighten me.

 

[Salvatore]

Desirability is subjective...just like beauty. There are some people out there that adore CDG and wear it just as if it were something as normal as something from H&M. Different designers appeal to different people.

Just my little input.

 

[verkeerd]

because they believe in their product..

 

[mirrra]

as Salvatore said - different designers appeal to different people.
like for me CDG and Tao garments are more desirable than many others...

 

[chloehandbags]

I assume they must have a relatively small, but extremely dedicated clientèle who like to wear 'wacky' clothing?

I suppose one could equally well ask why some designers, who, relentlessly, churn out the same plain, deadly boring clothing, season after season, succeed, too?

Horses for courses, I guess.

 

[SomethingElse]

I am beginning to think that fashion is rather like nature - diversity is healthy. In the clothing industry like any of the arts, on the one hand we have fine artistry of creation (form), and on the other hand, there is the necessary utilitarian craft (function). Then, there is everything in between.

I prefer having a very wide choice, seeing individual creations, and dressing as I like. I have an aversion for uniforms. If all designers made functional clothes, I would lose interest pretty quickly. It is the artistry and expression of the designers that fascinates me!

I think of fashion like music - the more, the merrier!

 

[MulletProof]

Yeah, Salvatore nailed it plain and simple. it's all subjective. I know I find D&G to be highly unwearable.. more unwearable than most clothes from CDG.. I look at Tao for instance and I can totally see myself wearing many items out on the street.. with different styling than the show, of course. but then I look at these jeans.. and there is absolutely NO way haha..

[style]

it's not the fact that I have a natural aversion for nouveau riche clothing, it's just horrible horrible in my eyes.
but I accept that some people might appreciate it somehow

 

[wheneveriwakeup]

I assume they must have a relatively small, but extremely dedicated clientèle who like to wear 'wacky' clothing?

I suppose one could equally well ask why some designers, who, relentlessly, churn out the same plain, deadly boring clothing, season after season, succeed, too?

Horses for courses, I guess.

The empires of CDG and Yohji Yamamoto pull in major numbers yearly, actually. Their clientele is anything but 'small'.

I believe every designer, even the ones whose asethetic differs from my own, offers choice. It's that simplistic - choice. If we didn't have Tao K and for significant contrast, Versace, our options would be severely scarce.

The wearability of any designer is based on the person contemplating the garment, rly. I find so much wearability from the 'kooky'; the pieces are magical, cryptic puzzles yearning to be solved. The mystery behind the garment is what makes it all the more satisfying. It transcends simply 'wearing' clothes, I think. It becomes much more personal and intimate. A union of understanding, choice and singular beauty...

 

[chloehandbags]

The empires of CDG and Yohji Yamamoto pull in major numbers yearly, actually. Their clientele is anything but 'small'.

I said 'relatively small', as in small when compared with the huge, more commercial, fashion houses.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I assume that Dior and LV sell more than CDG, for example?

 

[Spike413]

^ Keep in mind, LV and Dior also pull in major revenue from bags, shoes, accessories and so on to the Comme Des Garcons and Yamamotos of the industry. When comparing the sales of the clothes themselves, I wouldn't be surprised if they were fairly close in numbers. CDG could very well surpass LV in rtw sales, let's face it, LV isn't where many people go for clothes if they're looking for high fashion, it's more about the bags.

As far as why designers create "unwearable" stuff for the runway, many times those things don't make it into production to be sold. The clients don't demand it so the suits see no need to produce expensive clothing that wont sell. The thing with high fashion is that what you see on a runway is the core collection, the message the designer wants to make and believes in strongly, but there's always a lot more pieces in the showroom so that the racks are full.

 

[chloehandbags]

^ True, true.

So you think CDG could possibly sell more R-T-W than most of the so-called major design houses, then?

 

[Spike413]

^ I'm not sure, I'm not really a numbers person, but for every high glam Versace customer there's a quirky artist for CDG, of that I'm confident.

That's the beauty of it all.

 

[chloehandbags]

^ Do you think?

I'm still not totally convinced, TBH.

If CDG sell as much as, or more than, Versace, I think it's more likely that each of their customers is more loyal and buys more items from them (as they are more of a niche market).

In my experience, at least, there are far more glamour girls than there are quirky artists, in this world!

I also worry that quirky artists are often not the richest of people (unless they're independently wealthy, of course)...

 

[vetements]

^ Do you think?

I'm still not totally convinced, TBH.

If CDG sell as much as, or more than, Versace, I think it's more likely that each of their customers is more loyal and buys more items from them (as they are more of a niche market).

In my experience, at least, there are far more glamour girls than there are quirky artists, in this world!

I also worry that quirky artists are often not the richest of people (unless they're independently wealthy, of course)...

rei kawakubo and her empire is as much business oriented as they are artistically.

at her store you will see lots of 'mainstream' clothings, albeit mostly with a twist, either in terms of fabric, design , color or anything else.
so that generates a lot of more 'wearable' pieces for the people who likes rei's visions, yet finds it difficult to incorporate into their daily wardrobe.

not to mention the (anti) perfumes and accessories there is for you to choose from the many varied lines.

and not just quirky artists who are fans of rei, many will probably be surprised to know that people like vera wang and anna wintour are fans of rei

 

[chloehandbags]

Coincidentally, I just found this on a recently bumped thread (posted in 2004

Because Comme des Garçons is a small company, with annual sales of $120 million, it isn't encumbered with layers of bureaucracy and can respond to changes quickly.

Whereas, in 2004, LV's turnover for fashion and leathergoods was €4,366 million (over $6,168 million); so, even assuming that 2/3 of that was for leathergoods, that is still over $2,000 million on clothing alone:

http://www.lvmh.com/groupe/pop_chiffres.asp?str_contenu_pop=4​

Therefore, I think my description of a 'relatively small clientèle', technically, holds true, doesn't it?​

 

[chloehandbags]

rei kawakubo and her empire is as much business oriented as they are artistically.

at her store you will see lots of 'mainstream' clothings, albeit mostly with a twist, either in terms of fabric, design , color or anything else.
so that generates a lot of more 'wearable' pieces for the people who likes rei's visions, yet finds it difficult to incorporate into their daily wardrobe.

Yes, but I think the OP's original question (before it was merged with another thread from 2006), was, essentially, how many people actually like this vision when they see it on the runway and if that is not many (relatively), what is the point of continuing to produce it (i.e. if relatively few people are attracted to a designer's shows, how many of the ones who don't like it/feel they can't wear it will come and look at the more wearable items in their stores?

Why do some designers design the way that they do? Tao and Comme Des Garcons are examples of designers that confuse. Not many of the pieces are useful IMO, but sometimes pretty. I only ask because I thought the mindset of a designer was to have desireable, wearable pieces that people want to keep. Can someone please explain. I don't mean to be an idiot but maybe someone can enlighten me.

not to mention the (anti) perfumes and accessories there is for you to choose from the many varied lines.

and not just quirky artists who are fans of rei, many will probably be surprised to know that people like vera wang and anna wintour are fans of rei

True, but even Vera Wang and Anna Wintour are not mainstream, in the broader scheme of things, are they?

They would be considered quirky themselves, by most non-fashion oriented people (as am I, no doubt!)!

 

[chloehandbags]

^ Forgot to say:

Obviously, the OP's question has pretty much been answered; designers like this provide a valuable service to a relatively niche market.

However, I think it still begs the question - if they also sell comparatively wearable clothing in their stores, why do they feature so little of it on their runways each season?

In the past, I might have assumed that the answer to that question is the free advertising generated by shock value. But, really, how shocking is deconstruction/reconstruction these days?

On the street - fairly. But on the runway?

 

[jennifer~]

The wearability of any designer is based on the person contemplating the garment, rly. I find so much wearability from the 'kooky'; the pieces are magical, cryptic puzzles yearning to be solved. The mystery behind the garment is what makes it all the more satisfying. It transcends simply 'wearing' clothes, I think. It becomes much more personal and intimate.

Similarly, I've always said I'd never wear clothes of my own design, because it eliminates the mystery... and the surprise, of finding design elements that inspire. Ideas I'd never conceptualize on my own, but that I wish would occur to me! Essentially I find much more mystery and surprise (and inspiration) in avant garde designers, compared either with Ralph Lauren or... myself/DIY. (Same establishment, really ) And yes, that makes me want to wear them over anything else; it's simply where my interests lie.